Project Hope the New Direction
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 113327651
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2020–2020
- Forms available
- Form 990 2020, Form 990-EZ 2019, Form 990-N 2017
- Location
- NYC, NY, USA
- Phone
- 7184121837
- Rating
- 64
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Youth Development Programs
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $31,905
- Expenses
- $31,639
- Assets
- $266
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
5 people listed
Highest reported compensation
- Natalie Cruz (Program Administrator): $43,550 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Who are we? Project Hopes mission is to help young people living in poverty in NYC develop their strengths, skills, talents and competencies through effective experiential learning, youth development principles and work programs to prepare them for todays economy. Our vision is that young people who grow up in the neighborhoods we serve should have the same opportunities as young people who grow up in well-resourced neighborhoods. For us, a good life means that as an adult, you can answer yes to these three questions: Are you happy? Do you feel motivated? Have you been able to make real choices about the course of your life?
What it reported doing in 2020
NYC Dept. of Youth & Community Development-Underwritten; staff to administer program and provide direct services to 120 youth at Benjamin Franklin HS and IS 109 in Southeast Queens, NY The Youth Leadership & Career Pathway (YLCP) model is career and post-education driven; it will consist of an extensive intake process & case management services, and referrals & activities will be based on each clients assessment needs. The project will focus on (4) four main areas: 1. helping clients prepare for and cope with H.S. & post-education transitions 2. helping clients alleviate barriers to graduation & academic success 3. helping clients identify and prepare for post-education & career pathways and 4. helping clients build positive behavioral/social skills. Clients had access to: 1. customized educational support, 2. supportive services and 3. YLCP work-force development (WFD) workshop sessions geared toward meeting each participants social needs and developing their behavioral/job-readiness skills to prepare them for todays employment market. YLCP was based on youth development principles. Students in our YLCP were afforded tutoring, homework help, counseling, therapy & referrals to support their PATHWAY objectives & goals and was able to participate in PATHWAYS geared to their career and post-education interests.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Grant-funded. 72% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 85
- Transparency & Controls: 84
- Accountability: 16
- Sustainability: 37
- Growth: 0
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 95.2%; rating input score 95
- Program expense ratio: 96%; rating input score 96
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 11th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 0.8%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.01; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 137.6%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: -10% per year; rating input score 0; 36th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -21.6% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 95.2% of revenue deployed · 96% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 0 of 4 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $30K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $44K · 5 people listed
- Consistency: 21 of 22 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
- Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
- People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.
- High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 4/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 58/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 3/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.